• If you are having problems logging in please use the Contact Us in the lower right hand corner of the forum page for assistance.

$22 Trillion spent so far...not getting any better

hypocritexposer

Well-known member
The Census Bureau's annual report on poverty, released Tuesday, is noteworthy because this year marks the 50th anniversary of President Lyndon Johnson's launch of the War on Poverty.

Liberals claim that the war has failed because we didn't spend enough money. Their answer is to spend more. But the facts show otherwise.

Since its beginning, U.S. taxpayers have spent $22 trillion on Johnson's War on Poverty (in constant 2012 dollars). Adjusting for inflation, that's three times more than was spent on all military wars since the American Revolution.

The federal government currently runs more than 80 means-tested welfare programs. These programs provide cash, food, housing and medical care to low-income Americans. Federal and state spending on these programs last year was $943 billion.

(These figures do not include Social Security, Medicare or unemployment insurance.)

Over 100 million people, about a third of the U.S. population, received aid from at least one welfare program at an average cost of $9,000 per recipient in 2013. If converted to cash, current means-tested spending is five times the amount needed to eliminate all poverty in the U.S.

But the Census will almost certainly proclaim that around 14% of Americans are still poor. The present poverty rate is almost exactly the same as it was in 1967, a few years after the War on Poverty started. Census data actually show that poverty has gotten worse over the last 40 years.

How is this possible? How can the taxpayers spend $22 trillion on welfare while poverty gets worse? The answer is that it isn't possible. Census counts a family as poor if its income falls below specified thresholds. But in counting family "income," Census ignores nearly the entire $943 billion welfare state.

For most Americans, the word "poverty" means significant material deprivation, an inability to provide a family with adequate nutritious food, reasonable shelter and clothing. But only a small portion of the more than 40 million people labeled as poor by Census fit that description.

The media frequently associate the idea of poverty with being homeless. But less than 2% of the poor are homeless. Only one in 10 live in mobile homes. The typical house or apartment of the poor is in good repair, uncrowded and actually larger than the average dwelling of non-poor French, Germans or English.

According to government surveys, the typical family that Census identifies as poor has air-conditioning, cable or satellite TV, and a computer. Forty percent have a wide-screen HDTV, and another 40% have Internet access. Three quarters of the poor own a car and roughly a third have two or more cars.

Read More At Investor's Business Daily: http://news.investors.com/ibd-editorials-perspective/091614-717643-johnson-war-on-poverty-still-hasnt-been-won.htm#ixzz3Da5ONw3u
Follow us: @IBDinvestors on Twitter | InvestorsBusinessDaily on Facebook
 

Mike

Well-known member
While I agree with the premise that Johnson's "War On Poverty" is an abject failure, I do not agree with the comparison of that to the totality of "War" costs.

War costs (or money spent by the DOD) are not necessarily comparable because the military has a budget that it will spend in defense of the USA whether we are at war or not. The "War On Poverty" need not do the same.

Most monies spent on war costs by the DOD are a natural stimulus to the U.S. Economy in that supplies, maintenance, and payroll to the many bases here prosper towards local private contractors in all areas of the U.S..

Not to say there isn't waste & fraud. But those can & should be addressed and are a natural phenomenon of big government.
 

Brad S

Well-known member
To evaluate the efficacy of the Democrat welfare state, one must first identify the purpose or goal. First, the goal is not "to lift people and improve the human state". Liberty is the best delivery mechanism of that goal, but liberty is what was diminished to bring the Democrat welfare state. Simply, the advancement of state power is the goal, and well met goal of the Democrat welfare state. Just about everything bad is the cost of the scheme, but the Democrats will accept that.
 

Mike

Well-known member
Traveler said:
It's been expensive to, to paraphrase, keep those ni**ers voting Democratic for the next 200 years.

I literally fell out of my chair and spilled a big glass of sweet tea. I owe you one!!!!!
 

Steve

Well-known member
they have also changed the definition of poor and hungry... as well as homeless..

take homeless for example..

An individual may be considered to be homeless if that person is “doubled up,” a term that refers to a situation where individuals are unable to maintain their housing situation and are forced to stay with a series of friends and/or extended family members. In addition, previously homeless individuals who are to be released from a prison or a hospital may be considered homeless if they do not have a stable housing situation to which they can return. A recognition of the instability of an individual’s living arrangements is critical to the definition of homelessness. (HRSA/Bureau of Primary Health Care, Program Assistance Letter 99-12, Health Care for the Homeless Principles of Practice)

so room-mates are homeless.. ?

someone staying with family is homeless?



Families with children or unaccompanied youth who are unstably housed and likely to continue in that state. This is a new category of homelessness, and it applies to families with children or unaccompanied youth who have not had a lease or ownership interest in a housing unit in the last 60 or more days, have had two or more moves in the last 60 days, and who are likely to continue to be unstably housed because of disability or multiple barriers to employment.

so if a family is "just making it",.. they can now be considered homeless.. ?


and once they get some help.. g-d forbid they actually start managing their situation.. as they will then lose all help..
 

littlejoe

Well-known member
Mike said:
Traveler said:
It's been expensive to, to paraphrase, keep those ni**ers voting Democratic for the next 200 years.

I literally fell out of my chair and spilled a big glass of sweet tea. I owe you one!!!!!

Git ary on the sheet, didja Bubba? How's the possum skinning gong?
 

Brad S

Well-known member
Liarjoe, traveler was merely quoting that Democrat icon, LBJ. Don't go getting all bigoted on him or you look as bad as Democrat leaders.
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
Brad S said:
Liarjoe, traveler was merely quoting that Democrat icon, LBJ. Don't go getting all bigoted on him or you look as bad as Democrat leaders.


So Brad just because LBJ was a bigot gives Traveler and the KKK boy free rein to be bigots too :???:

LBJ also misled the world on the Gulf of Tonkin incident to get us into a full fledged shooting war that got a lot of good men and women killed in a losing effort (as images of history repeating itself with GW flashes before my eyes)...
 

Mike

Well-known member
Oldtimer said:
Brad S said:
Liarjoe, traveler was merely quoting that Democrat icon, LBJ. Don't go getting all bigoted on him or you look as bad as Democrat leaders.


So Brad just because LBJ was a bigot gives Traveler and the KKK boy free rein to be bigots too :???:

LBJ also misled the world on the Gulf of Tonkin incident to get us into a full fledged shooting war that got a lot of good men and women killed in a losing effort (as images of history repeating itself with GW flashes before my eyes)...

Flashes before your eyes like that RYDER TRUCK? :roll:
 

littlejoe

Well-known member
Brad S said:
Liarjoe, traveler was merely quoting that Democrat icon, LBJ. Don't go getting all bigoted on him or you look as bad as Democrat leaders.

bitemebradley---lil bubba's got his foto in dictoniarey whar it sez 'bigot'
 

Latest posts

Top